SL2Your explanation is one way to see it, the other is: would 8 + 4 make it a better product, making it more popular, and inte the end not getting such price cuts like what we're seeing here? AMD did 6 + 6, and look where it got them..

I mean, who are we to say that this current impopular product is more economically viable, than an 8 + 4 that could be sold for maybe $100 right now and have a better reputation?

It's all speculation, but using only 4 cores is bad for business, I get that. Putting it next to a 8 core 3D chip isn't the same thing, because now we're talking about AMD's theoretical next best CPU, which would be priced accordingly.

8+4 does not automatically mean a better product. You are saying a 5800X with a 3100X would be better than 2 5600X. That just cannot be true. Is the 5900X a slow chip?

kapone328+4 does not automatically mean a better product. You are saying a 5800X with a 3100X would be better than 2 5600X. That just cannot be true. Is the 5900X a slow chip?

Yes, the 5900X has many problems that the 5950X does not have, and the 5800X3D for gaming and multimedia is better than both of those for the exact same reason.

kapone32Yep Transistor count doesn't matter. So I guess you are ok with a CPU running at 3 Ghz.

Transistor count goes up because it has two CCDs physically present. Each compute die has the same amount of transistors on both CPUs, except a large portion of these are disabled and non functional on the 7900X3D.

AssimilatorIt doesn't because this is an enthusiast forum, and thus any sample is invariably biased towards the higher-end.


100% agree with all of this. It's especially jarring since AM4 was cheap and fast, then AM5 dropped the cheap part for no other apparent reason than AMD thought it was time to make some big profits. If AM5 was something special I wouldn't have any issues with the price increase, but it's not - it's literally the exact same crippled consumer desktop platform as AM4, just with PCIe 5.0 capabilities that nobody gives a flying f**k about. No USB4, no Thunderbolt, no extra PCIe lanes, just slightly newer IO at a much higher price point.

It also doesn't help that AMD continues to churn out AM4 CPUs by the truckload, thereby cannibalising their own market for AM5. Unless you absolutely need PCIe 5.0, and again literally nobody does, you get very little benefit buying AM5 over AM4, and a much bigger hole in your wallet. So why would anyone buy AM5 then? This is the question AMD seems to be incapable of asking itself, let alone answering.


Running a business based on what "the community" says it wants, is a good way to no longer have a business.

You know this is no joke, I was making the rounds on the local price comparison site today to replace my 8700K with an 7800X3D and I kinda just thought to myself once again: man, that's a lot of money, especially the 130 EUR for DDR5. I could just stick another 16GB of DDR4 in there at half or less of the money and get a 5800X3D... but then I haven't got the fastest thing and an old platform.

It is exactly BECAUSE of those options, both being kinda subpar in one way or another (either overpriced, or yesteryears tech) that I don't feel comfy burning north of 500 bucks on this upgrade yet. Or 700 in the case of AM5.

SL2It's all speculation, but using only 4 cores is bad for business, I get that. Putting it next to a 8 core 3D chip isn't the same thing, because now we're talking about AMD's theoretical next best CPU, which would be priced accordingly.

Why would they ever do this in client CPU if they can place the same 4 core chiplet in EPYC SKU and securely sell it 10 times more expensive in a big CPU?

R9 and i9 CPUs, similarly to top and halo GPUs, receive disproportionally more space, attention and comments on tech websites, understandingly so, than market share. The reality is that a few tiny percentage of people worldwide buy those top models, mostly enthusiasts and those who need it for specific work in their homes/businesses, such as media encoding and similar. Vast majority of people do not need such powerful CPUs.

Dr. DroYes, the 5900X has many problems that the 5950X does not have, and the 5800X3D for gaming and multimedia is better than both of those for the exact same reason.



Transistor count goes up because it has two CCDs physically present. Each compute die has the same amount of transistors on both CPUs, except a large portion of these are disabled and non functional on the 7900X3D.

LMAO, please tell me what is wrong with the butter smooth 5900X? Or the snappy 5950X? You have no idea what you are talking about outside of Gaming a 5800X3D is slower than a 5800X but I don't know what I am talking about after having used and sold every single AM4 chip.

Yes transistor goes up because there are 2 CCDs, with more Gates to open. I guess you are an AMD engineer though and know a CPU that you have not even used intimately is inherently weak because it did not qualify as a 7950X3D. That $350 I saved is a very compelling reason to sacrifice what you are talking about.

Dr. DroThe 7800X3D's resources are fully available without scheduling issues, the 7900X3D's are not because of its topology.

This is more academic. The impact is minor, on average, roughy 5% in gaming.
But, I also understand that 7800X3D is more mainstream, more popular, slightly faster in gaming, which is fine. I don't care much about 5% in gaming.
I will take 4 more cores at any time of the day for similar price, as MT performance on 7900X3D is vastly superior than 7800X3D.

Dr. DroIt's simply a bad SKU all around. There's no point in a 6 3D+6 standard processor, because you're never getting the best of both worlds. However, at this price, eh, it's passable. I'd still go with the 7800X3D instead, not to mention Zen 5 soon.

- it's not "bad" and it does not need to be the best of both world. It was never meant to be that. It's a compromise CPU.
- 7800X3D is also a compromise of a different kind. Sure, it's best for gaming, but it's dismal in MT performance. The value slider is in a different point.
- you go for whatever Zen suits best your workloads and needs. Allow others to do the same and try to accept their choice, even if you don't like it.
- at this price, it is not "passable". It's literally the best deal I have seen in a while. So, whoever can grab it at this price, great purchase.

kapone32LMAO, please tell me what is wrong with the butter smooth 5900X? Or the snappy 5950X? You have no idea what you are talking about outside of Gaming a 5800X3D is slower than a 5800X but I don't know what I am talking about after having used and sold every single AM4 chip.

Yes transistor goes up because there are 2 CCDs, with more Gates to open. I guess you are an AMD engineer though and know a CPU that you have not even used intimately is inherently weak because it did not qualify as a 7950X3D. That $350 I saved is a very compelling reason to sacrifice what you are talking about.

You clearly don't have the tech cred to discuss this

Tek-CheckThis is more academic. The impact is minor, on average, roughy 5% in gaming.
But, I also understand that 7800X3D is more mainstream, more popular, slightly faster in gaming, which is fine. I don't care much about 5% in gaming.
I will take 4 more cores at any time of the day for similar price, as MT performance on 7900X3D is vastly superior than 7800X3D.


- it's not "bad" and it does not need to be the best of both world. It was never meant to be that. It's a compromise CPU.
- 7800X3D is also a compromise of a different kind. Sure, it's best for gaming, but it's dismal in MT performance. The slider is in a different point.
- you go for whatever Zen suits best your workloads and needs. Allow others to do the same and try to accept their choice, even if you don't like it.
- at this price, it is not "passable". It's literally the best deal I have seen in a while. So, whoever can grab it at this price, great purchase.

That's debatable, but it's a suboptimal SKU and it's clearly not selling well, otherwise it wouldn't be this cheap. If you shaved another 100 out of this then it'd be the deal of a lifetime.

Dr. DroYou clearly don't have the tech cred to discuss this

Why because I used them? This reminds me of how you think the 13900K/14900K instability is not an issue even though I posted videos from the some of the biggest tech tubers.
You are of course right though because I am not an avid AMD user LMAO.

kapone32Why because I used them? This reminds me of how you think the 13900K/14900K instability is not an issue even though I posted videos from the some of the biggest tech tubers.
You are of course right though because I am not an avid AMD user LMAO.

No, it's because you're completely ignoring what basically everyone said. It's a topology issue. Read this post:

Avro ArrowThere's a reason why this CPU is being offered for less than even the R9-7900 and that reason is the fact that the R9-7900X3D is easily the worst Zen4 CPU ever produced.

I said it when it was released and I still say it now. The Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs were a huge mistake on AMD's part and the cynicism of its creation really irked me. The R9-7900X3D is especially bad as there's literally nothing that stands out about this CPU to make it compelling to anyone.

The R9-7950X3D is at least compelling as AMD's current flagship CPU (overall, it still sucks though).
The R9-7950X is compelling as the most potent productivity CPU that AMD currently produces.
The R9-7900 offers the best overall value in the Ryzen 9 lineup along with the lowest power draw (TDP of only 65W) and comes with the Wraith Prism included, a CPU cooler that can easily handle it.

The R9-7900X3D can't game as well as the R7-7800X3D, it's not as productive as the R9-7900 or R9-7900X because of the clock and power limitations imposed upon it by the 3D V-Cache, something that has no place on a CPU that is most suited to productivity. The 3D V-Cache is also only on one of the R9-7900X3D's two CCXs which means that it's essentially a hexacore gaming CPU that can experience scheduling issues. Now, at $329, at least its price is compelling, because nothing else about it is.

Whoever made the decision to produce this CPU and price it the same as the R9-7950X instead of creating twice as many R5-3600X3D's should have had their employment at AMD terminated because it was literally the worst thing that they could do. High prices on AM5 parts literally crippled its adoption rate and this was only compounded by the fact that, until the R7-7800X3D was introduced, there weren't any really compelling CPUs for AM4 owners to upgrade to, because the R7-5800X3D is so damn good.

When you're a chipmaker that has adopted the practice of long-lived platforms (like AM4 is and AM5 is supposed to be), what you want is to get as many consumers on board as you can because they become a captive audience. I would estimate that over 90% of AM4 owners had the sense to stay with AM4 the whole way because being able to drop a CPU like the R7-5700X3D or R7-5800X3D into a motherboard from 2017 and get fantastic gaming performance without needing a new board or RAM is a huge boon for most consumers. This strategy not only brought AMD back from the brink of insolvency, it turned them into the market leader in less than five years, a turnaround that has never before been seen in the industry. If you had told me just ten years ago that AMD would be the CPU market leader after Intel had held a stranglehold on the CPU market for over 30 years, I would've asked you what drugs you were on (and where could I get some).

All AMD had to do to make AM5 an unmitigated success was to limit the 3D V-Cache to Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 models. Their pricing strategy was that an X3D CPU would be the same price as the X CPU from the tier above like this (with the exception of the R9-7950X3D of course because it was already the top-tier):

$R9-7900X3D = $R9-7950X
$R7-7800X3D = $R9-7900X

So, all AMD had to do was this: $R5-7600X3D = $R7-7700X and their adoption rate would have increased by a minimum of 50% with a doubling of the adoption rate not out of the realm of possiblity. Even if they didn't make huge profits initially, they would know that the users who adopted AM5 would be buying only AMD CPUs for the life of the platform. It's like Sony's brilliant tactic of making no profit (or even taking a loss) for every Playstation sold because they knew that someone who bought a Playstation would have to buy games (which is where they raked in massive profits). One cannot deny the success of Sony's method when one considers that the Playstation is the undisputed console king, holding a 57.5% share of the US console market.

An R5-7600X3D for the same price as the R7-7700X would've been a guaranteed home run for AMD. Instead they decided to bunt with the Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs (especially the R9-7900X3D) and this is the result, their attempted cash-grab is sitting on the shelves gathering dust just like the RX 7900 XT, RX 7700 XT, RTX 4060 16GB and RTX 4080 did.

This is what I and dgian always tell you but nah, we're just picking on ya...

Dr. DroThat's debatable, but it's a suboptimal SKU and it's clearly not selling well, otherwise it wouldn't be this cheap. If you shaved another 100 out of this then it'd be the deal of a lifetime.

It is not selling well only because of the narrative propagated by people like you. This chip will make a 7800X3D look weak in regular Computing. I keep trying to tell you that it is the same as the 5800X vs the 5900X3D but you refuse to open your mind. You are convinced that AMD has not progressed since the 3900X.

kapone32It is not selling well only because of the narrative propagated by people like you. This chip will make a 7800X3D look weak in regular Computing. I keep trying to tell you that it is the same as the 5800X vs the 5900X3D but you refuse to open your mind. You are convinced that AMD has not progressed since the 3900X.

You overestimate our voices, it's not selling because everything it does is done better by the CPU below and above it, and also by the competition. The technological shortcomings of this product are quite apparent, and we have an educated market that is willing to spend for higher efficiency or performance products. The RTX 4090 being the best seller GPU this generation is proof of that.

Dr. DroNo, it's because you're completely ignoring what basically everyone said. It's a topology issue. Read this post:

Yes from people that don't own the chip or have not experienced it. I have already given you that the narrative has made this a "bad chip". Why are you trying to make me sully the truth with this opinion? Like I said I own the chip. I am not some simp that is trying to avoid purchase remorse. I use this machine everyday, all day playing different Games and doing things that people do with their PC. As you don't know I also work from home so I have had seriously intimate time with my PC.

Dr. DroYou overestimate our voices, it's not selling because everything it does is done better by the CPU below and above it, and also by the competition. The technological shortcomings of this product are quite apparent, and we have an educated market that is willing to spend for higher efficiency or performance products. The RTX 4090 being the best seller GPU this generation is proof of that.

Yes the 7800X3D is faster in some Games and the 7950X3D is faster in productivity. You argument would make sense if they were the same price. Your voices are just opinion and nothing more. The narrative and the truth have never been the same.

kapone32Yes from people that don't own the chip or have not experienced it. I have already given you that the narrative has made this a "bad chip". Why are you trying to make me sully the truth with this opinion? Like I said I own the chip. I am not some simp that is trying to avoid purchase remorse. I use this machine everyday, all day playing different Games and doing things that people do with their PC. As you don't know I also work from home so I have had seriously intimate time with my PC.


Yes the 7800X3D is faster in some Games and the 7950X3D is faster in productivity. You argument would make sense if they were the same price. Your voices are just opinion and nothing more. The narrative and the truth have never been the same.

Sorry I did not read that foolish 4090 argument when the 7900XT is fine for 4K and 1/3 the price of a 4090. Give me a break. AMD Advantage is not just marketing.

Chrispy_IMO the 7800X3D is the only X3D AM5 part worth considering, unless AMD make the bold move of adding 3D V-Cache to both CCDs on the 7900 and 7950 variants.

The 5900X prototype with 3d V cache on both ccd showed little to no gains due to inter CCD latency and was never released don't think that has been fixed by Zen 4 or Zen 5. Maybe once they redo the IOD and move up core counts on Zen 6 we will see that.

Dr. DroThe RTX 4090 being the best seller GPU this generation is proof of that.

Source?

7900X3D at $330 is not a bad deal any way you look at it. Its MSRP of $600 was unfortunately really bad, but sales have dropped it to around $475 to $525 if you knew where to look.

If you hit it with Process Lasso or limit it to "7600X3D mode" to take advantage of the 96MB cache (the other 32MB is on CCD1) it can kind of beat the 7800X3D at most games due to the extra 200MHz base clock but may lose to it if the game uses more than 12 threads. Not a slow chip by any means.

I would've kept my 7900X3D (June 2023), but I got the 7950X3D for around $570 (includes tax) on a Prime Day deal the month after and that was too good to pass up. That and I was also lucky because apparently it can do -25/-30 CCD0/CCD1 PBO2.

EDIT: Also c'mon guys link to the AntOnline (US-only) store as well. LOL

www.antonline.com/AMD/Computers/Electronic_Components/Microprocessors/1469471

Avro ArrowThere's a reason why this CPU is being offered for less than even the R9-7900 and that reason is the fact that the R9-7900X3D is easily the worst Zen4 CPU ever produced.

Sounds like apocalyptic and deeply cynical take on the CPU. Let's examine it.

Avro ArrowI said it when it was released and I still say it now. The Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs were a huge mistake on AMD's part and the cynicism of its creation really irked me. The R9-7900X3D is especially bad as there's literally nothing that stands out about this CPU to make it compelling to anyone.

- 'to anyone'? Crude generalization that makes this negative narrative suspicious out of the gate
- it sells between 40-100 units on a weekly basis on Mindfactory alone, so there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of folks globally who already enjoy it and find it interesting for their needs. Are you able to recognize that others actually buy this CPU, even if you do not like it?
- therefore, what you wrote above is blatantly wrong

Avro ArrowThe R9-7950X3D is at least compelling as AMD's current flagship CPU (overall, it still sucks though).
The R9-7950X is compelling as the most potent productivity CPU that AMD currently produces.
The R9-7900 offers the best overall value in the Ryzen 9 lineup along with the lowest power draw (TDP of only 65W) and comes with the Wraith Prism included, a CPU cooler that can easily handle it.

- none of the above is an argument against 7900X3D; each chip can find buyers with specific needs/workloads; it's called diversity
- you know, people buy different types of croissants in a bakery, each one to their taste and liking. Who is to say whether chocolate, almond or butter croissant is the best? Butter croissant definitively sells the most globally, but almond croissant has its crowd too. It's not as loud and popular as the butter croissant crowd is though.

Avro ArrowThe R9-7900X3D can't game as well as the R7-7800X3D, it's not as productive as the R9-7900 or R9-7900X because of the clock and power limitations imposed upon it by the 3D V-Cache, something that has no place on a CPU that is most suited to productivity.

- gaming experience also depends on preferred titles, GPU and display resolutions
- in 4K gaming, there are 15 top CPUs, including 7900X3D, that are only 6-7% away from each other (TPU charts), on average, so it's largely negligible
- 7900X3D was neither designed to be the best in gaming nor in productivity. Why would anyone ever expect that from this CPU?
- 7900X is faster in productivity, of course, but it guzzles way more power at it; e.g. in Handbrake x265 it is just a tad faster but way less efficient
- you present a binary take both on gaming and productivity, all-or-nothing approach, which is not how real world works

Avro ArrowThe 3D V-Cache is also only on one of the R9-7900X3D's two CCXs which means that it's essentially a hexacore gaming CPU that can experience scheduling issues. Now, at $329, at least its price is compelling, because nothing else about it is.

- price is compelling, I agree; actually, very compelling for the product, the best I have seen so far
- "nothing else" is not correct, as explained above; in gaming it's very close to top CPUs, especially in higher resolutions, and in productivity it is miles faster than 7800X3D, with 4 more core, and much cheaper than higher SKUs, a good choice for someone who does productivity, such as media encoding, without needing the top SKU
- I agree that there are a few scheduling issues in some games; those have been identified and measured, and it's up to buyers to look at it, whether this affects them. For example, I do not play any of those games, so the issue does not concern me at all.

Avro ArrowWhoever made the decision to produce this CPU and price it the same as the R9-7950X instead of creating twice as many R5-3600X3D's should have had their employment at AMD terminated because it was literally the worst thing that they could do. High prices on AM5 parts literally crippled its adoption rate and this was only compounded by the fact that, until the R7-7800X3D was introduced, there weren't any really compelling CPUs for AM4 owners to upgrade to, because the R7-5800X3D is so damn good.

- this R9 SKU had lower volume from the outset due to its nature, being produced mostly from chiplets with one or two underperforming cores
- in many places, this chip arrived several weeks later in lower volumes; I looked at this across Europe at that time
- you forget that AMD decided to sell both platforms and they were aware that AM5 would only gradually pick up in adoption, which is exactly what happened over time. This particular chip has nothing to do with wider macroeconomic situation in the post-pandemic world where general PC sales decreased across the board around the time the new platform was released
- Zen4 X3D CPUs are not meant for vast majority of AM4 users who already have 5800X3D. Those users are good until Zen5 or later.

Avro ArrowWhen you're a chipmaker that has adopted the practice of long-lived platforms (like AM4 is and AM5 is supposed to be), what you want is to get as many consumers on board as you can because they become a captive audience. I would estimate that over 90% of AM4 owners had the sense to stay with AM4 the whole way because being able to drop a CPU like the R7-5700X3D or R7-5800X3D into a motherboard from 2017 and get fantastic gaming performance without needing a new board or RAM is a huge boon for most consumers. This strategy not only brought AMD back from the brink of insolvency, it turned them into the market leader in less than five years, a turnaround that has never before been seen in the industry. If you had told me just ten years ago that AMD would be the CPU market leader after Intel had held a stranglehold on the CPU market for over 30 years, I would've asked you what drugs you were on (and where could I get some).

- completely agree with this. Nothing to add.

Avro ArrowAll AMD had to do to make AM5 an unmitigated success was to limit the 3D V-Cache to Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 models. Their pricing strategy was that an X3D CPU would be the same price as the X CPU from the tier above like this (with the exception of the R9-7950X3D of course because it was already the top-tier):

$R9-7900X3D = $R9-7950X
$R7-7800X3D = $R9-7900X

- I agree that they could have considered releasing 7600X3D together with the other three SKUs.
- but, would it really make a difference? We might never know.
- 7600 and 7900 classes of CPUs target different audiences anyway, so the existence of 7900X3D did not prevent AMD from targetting more mainstream gaming market with lower SKU that they did not release.
- you cannot blame the existence of 7900X3D by saying that they did not release 7600X3D. Two different arguments there
- Hardware Unboxed measured '7600X3D' performance on disabled chiplet of 7900X3D in recent video and it's only ~12% faster than 5800X3D, which does not warrant a complelling upgrade from AM4 to AM5 for R5 users when 5800X3D already exists.

Avro ArrowSo, all AMD had to do was this: $R5-7600X3D = $R7-7700X and their adoption rate would have increased by a minimum of 50% with a doubling of the adoption rate not out of the realm of possiblity. Even if they didn't make huge profits initially, they would know that the users who adopted AM5 would be buying only AMD CPUs for the life of the platform. It's like Sony's brilliant tactic of making no profit (or even taking a loss) for every Playstation sold because they knew that someone who bought a Playstation would have to buy games (which is where they raked in massive profits). One cannot deny the success of Sony's method when one considers that the Playstation is the undisputed console king, holding a 57.5% share of the US console market.

- I would not bet my horses on doubling of the adoption rate if ~12% faster 7600X3D existed, considering the cost difference between entire AM4 and AM5 platform and popularity of 5800X3D
- any transition to a new platform where the older one is still so successful would always be a gradual, long process, which it is
- in this case, initial AM5 offerings were the victim of on-going AM4 success. We can't have it all - both longevity and quick adoption of new platform. Life does not work like that.
- 7900X3D is a tiny little piece of much wider picture. If they had not released it, it would not have changed much the global picture about the competition between the two platforms
- it's a good problem to have after all

Avro ArrowAn R5-7600X3D for the same price as the R7-7700X would've been a guaranteed home run for AMD. Instead they decided to bunt with the Ryzen 9 X3D CPUs (especially the R9-7900X3D) and this is the result, their attempted cash-grab is sitting on the shelves gathering dust just like the RX 7900 XT, RX 7700 XT, RTX 4060 16GB and RTX 4080 did.

- as said above, this was not set in stone as minor gains of 7600X3D over 5800X3D would not necessarily motivate people enough to switch to more expensive platform and invest into all new components. ~12% uplift does not sound that inviting.

- I'd argue quite opposite. R5 buyers are the group that is most price sensitive and minor performance gains in gaming of ~12% on '7600X3D' over 5800X3D would not have looked too attractive to motivate them to spend more on a new platform.
- that's probably the main reason why they did not bother with 7600X3D so far, but went straight to 7800X3D that does look significantly better
- again, 7900X3D has nothing to do with this battle of perceived improvements in lower segment
- so, I consider this 'crusade' against 7900X3D an unhelpful rant, scape-goating a CPU that has not done anything wrong to anyone
- like 5900X, 7900X3D does not need to be the best in either gaming or productivity, and it's not its job to be that. It's just another SKU as option for more niche group of thousands of buyers who already have it around the world and simply enjoy it.
- it's not even a victim of success of other AMD's SKUs; a good problem for AMD to have, as they can always adjust production volume depending on what sells more and what sells less
- I'd buy it now, if I needed a new system, but my upgrade is either Zen5 or Zen6, or back to Intel if new i7 turns out to be decently performant and efficient.

64KWell, if you look at the current exchange rate 789 AUD is equal to 511 USD. Also does the price include your 10% VAT?

That's one of the things that gets overlooked sometimes about US prices. We pay more than the advertised price. For example the 7900X3D lists on Amazon for $400 but when I include Sales Tax for my area (9.25%) the price I actually pay is $437.

Even with all of that you guys in Australia just seemed to get ripped off on pricing for some reason.

The Aussie dollar is 0.65USD and the price includes our low flat 10% tax rate. The computer shops make little margin, they don't sell much above what AMD would charge them. Our price is like our dollar is 0.45USD

HxxIt’s not 216 on any bundle . You need a specific bundle which has a specific board and ram otherwise it’s just the regular $20 off . If you want that bundle then yeah it’s a great deal but otherwise it depends
They can pull this off because they are a local store and can afford to lose money on some items and make up for it on other items. No different than your local grocery store. With that being said I am thankful to have one near me and have been shopping at mine for a long time

Nope, any ram and any motherboard. I got a ASRock board with mine, and in the cart the 7800x3d changes to $216. Deal is still going on too. Once you add all 3 items, the cart automatically updates the CPU price to be $216 regardless of Mobo or ram. I tried it just now on a few different variations, and still works.

ARFThis is not true.
Back in 2007, the average salary in my country was the equivalent of 276$, that means one could buy 8800 Ultra with 3.6 average salaries.
Today, the average salary in my country is the equivalent of 1278$, this means one could buy a graphics card at $1291 with only one salary and a bit more.

There are many production areas in which because of process optimisations and using cheaper materials, the costs of the goods end lower than in the past.

What's the country you leave in? It's insane how much higher your salaries are.

Tek-Check- at this price, it is not "passable". It's literally the best deal I have seen in a while. So, whoever can grab it at this price, great purchase.

I have to agree with this as at this price it's a fantastic deal. The compute performance for an R9 at this price point would not be a cause for disappointment and the additional cores will be better in the long run as the system ages. If affordability previously was preventing someone from getting a CPU at this tier it's really a no brainer to take advantage of the deal. It seems people forget the GPU is still the most important part for gaming and when budgeting building or upgrading a system trading off on CPU for GPU is a thing. 7900X3D at $329 is an incredible value for gaming and productivity even if it's not considered the top performer for either.

On the flip side if one has specific requirements for CPU performance one needs to match the correct part for desired task.

Tek-CheckWhy would they ever do this in client CPU if they can place the same 4 core chiplet in EPYC SKU and securely sell it 10 times more expensive in a big CPU?

R9 and i9 CPUs, similarly to top and halo GPUs, receive disproportionally more space, attention and comments on tech websites, understandingly so, than market share.

Thank you for answering your own question.

kapone328+4 does not automatically mean a better product.

You should've read my whole post lol.
Also: So what do you think makes a 7950X3D faster than a 7900X3D in games? (In games that has no issues with two chiplets)

kapone32You are saying a 5800X with a 3100X would be better than 2 5600X.

Yup, if the 5800X, and one 5600X had a 3D V-cache chiplet.

8 core 3D V-cache > 6 core 3D V-cache.

Or are you telling me that core count is irrelevant when using 3D V-cache? I'd love to get me some single core 1 GB L3 cache CPU..

If 6 + 6 is a disappointment, and 8 + 4 is such a waste of sand, well then maybe AMD should have gone for 8 + 6 and called it 7920 X3D.

Problem with the 7900X3D is that if you want to M/T, you're better off with a 7900X or 7950X. If you want to game, you're better off with a 7800X3D.

SL2If 6 + 6 is a disappointment, and 8 + 4 is such a waste of sand, well then maybe AMD should have gone for 8 + 6 and called it 7920 X3D.

6+6 is not a disappointment, far away from it, especially at $330.

Anyone spewing negativity on this SKU keeps forgetting that tens of thousands of people worldwide have already bought it and enjoy it daily. 40-100 units are sold weekly on Mindfactory alone. I debunked this negative propaganda in several posts above.


8+6 sounds to me like potentially an interesting SKU. The only question is whether slotting such SKUs between 12 and 16 core CPU would warrant enough difference between the three. I think not.

SlizzoProblem with the 7900X3D is that if you want to M/T, you're better off with a 7900X or 7950X. If you want to game, you're better off with a 7800X3D.

That's not a "problem" of this CPU, as it is very capable in both activities, plus it uses way LESS power in many MT workloads than vanilla CPUs. Some people prefer this.

99% of people have never bought the fastest CPU in anything. They don't need it.

Tek-Check6+6 is not a disappointment, far away from it, expecially at $330.

Oh you don't think 55% of MSRP is a disappointment for AMD? Doesn't really sound like that halo product you were talking about.
Disappointment -> Lower sales -> lower price. This isn't a random occurence, you don't see the other AM5 3D models with such huge discount.

AMD knew this, and that's why they didn't send it to reviewers, unlike the other two models.

Tek-CheckThe only question is whether slotting such SKUs between 12 and 16 core CPU would warrant enough difference between the three.

It would of course be instead of the 12 core, like I explained.

SL2Oh you don't think 55% of MSRP is a disappointment for AMD?

I don't really care if it's disappointment for them. It's a win for consumers who find this SKU interesting for their needs. At this price, it's a no brainer CPU. If they release similar 9900X3D, and with good price, I'd be certainly very tempted to buy it, as I plan an upgrade next year.